Dimitri Aivaliotis wrote:
> On 6/22/06, Daniel Schierbeck <daniel.schierbeck / gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hmm, I think it may be too indirect. You aren't really checking whether
>> the module has a name or not, but rather if it's anonymous.
>
>
> Isn't that the very definition of anonymous? "without a name"
Good point :)
I still think it's less mysterious to users if they could check the
anonymity of a module/class with an #anonymous? method, rather than
checking whether the name is nil.
Cheers,
Daniel